In The Matter Of An Application For Annulment Of The Government Regulation Of Prices. The Moratorium Of Rents

Original Language Title: ve věci návrhu na zrušení nařízení vlády o cen.moratoriu nájemného

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
84/2003 Coll.


The Constitutional Court

On behalf of the United States

The Constitutional Court decided on 19. March 2003 in plenary on the draft group

Senators on the Government Regulation No. 567/2002 Coll., laying down

the price of the rent of the flats, the moratorium and the imposition of a ban to the Government of the United

States continue interventions in the area of the apartment rent prices

through the issuance of its own law,

as follows:

Even. Decree-Law No 567/2002 Coll., laying down a price moratorium

the rent of the flats, is repealed on the date of publication of the finding in the journal of laws.

II. Proposal to the Government of the United States was forbidden to continue

interventions in the area of housing prices by issuing their own legal

regulations, is dismissed.

Rationale: I.

27 June 2002. in January 2003, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from a group of 25 senators,

led by Jaroslav Kuberou, for annulment of the regulation of the Government No. 567/2002 Coll.

fixing the prices of rent of the flats of the moratorium, which was

approved by the Government of the United States at its meeting and 19.12.2002

published in collection of laws of the day, and the proposal on 20.12.2002 Edition

the preliminary measures, on which the Constitutional Court had to disable

Government to continue its interventions in the area of the apartment rent prices

through the issuance of its own law.

In the beginning of this administration, points out that the amount was originally

apartment rent regulated by Decree of the Ministry of Finance No. 176/1993

Coll., on rent from the apartment and pay for the implementation provided with the use of the apartment,

in the wording of later regulations. This Decree was constitutional

the Court, dated 21.6.2000 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/2000 repealed, and that the date of

December 31, 2001, to the Constitutional Court by the appellants provided the legislation

enough time to create a new high-quality regulation. The Government, however, this

period to prepare the rental Act constitutionally consistent allegedly

missed, when the Chamber of deputies presented a draft law that

did not respect the constitutional order and the judgment of the Constitutional Court and that

The Chamber of Deputies did not accept. For the remaining 9 months of the Government proposal

According to the opinion of the appellants ' Act nepřipravovala. Subsequently, The Ministry Of

the Treasury published a price assessment no. 01/2002 establishing the list of products with

regulated prices; the effective date on 1.1.2002 was to

as the rent regulated maximum price almost the same way,

as in the repealed Decree No. 176/1993 date of 4.3.2002 received the constitutional

the Ombudsman's proposal, the Court for revocation of the cited assessment under

regarding the rent and services provided in connection with the rent and

a similar proposal from the Group of 3.4.2002 June senators, who designed and

the cancellation of the provision of section 10 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices. The Constitutional Court

both matter under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 and ordered the hearing in this matter

on 20.11.2002. The Ministry of Finance of the day 15.11.2002 repealed a contested

part of the assessment no. 01/2002 and published by Bill No. 06/2002 amending the Bill

No 01/2002, which referred to the Ministry, as the appellants argue,

the way to avoid an unprecedented constitutional tried to review the contested

legal regulation. The Constitutional Court Bill of the Ministry of Finance No. 06/2002

set aside and in its decision had noted historically third attempt

the application of identical rules of rents from the State and the

the resulting disregard for the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court in conflict with

the provision of article. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution").

The find, dated 20.11.2002 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 was published on

18.12.2002 in the collection of laws under no. 528/2002 Coll. and by the time of publication

This decision should become enforceable, i.e.. the current way

price of the apartment rent regulation expired. In this situation, the date of

19.12.2002, the Government approved this proposal, the contested regulation, which

It preserves the level that the Constitutional Court had repeatedly declared

unconstitutional, if the allegedly increasing prices above the level of a valid

to date, i.e. on day 57 prior to publication of the cited award SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 8/02 in the statute book. According to the complainants, the Government adoption

of the present regulation committed by a series of violations of constitutional norms and

the fourth time ignores the binding decision of the Constitutional Court.

As regards the specific reasons of unconstitutionality of the contested regulation,

the appellants point out first of all that it unjustifiably preserves

the amount of the rent to a level that the Constitutional Court was viewed in its

finding no 528/2002 Coll. as unconstitutional, saying that did not consider it desirable to

defer its enforceability and binding force. According to the plaintiffs, it is for the Government of

binding finding of neústavnosti law of rent on the date

for reasons of infringement of article 57. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention on

the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") and the article. 4

paragraph. 3 and 4 and article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter

also referred to as "the Charter"). In other words, if the Government regulates the amount of

rent way referring to unconstitutional legislation, this

later legislation also unconstitutional. In connection with this

the appellants point out that within the meaning of article 87(1). 89 para. 2 of the Constitution are not

právotvorné authorities of the State entitled to modify social relationships in

contrary to the finding of the Constitutional Court or authorities with legislative

the powers are not entitled to modify social relationships in the same

in a way, which in the past was cancelled by the Constitutional Court for its

the unconstitutionality. The Government did not observe this rule, ignoring or

It recommended that the Constitutional Court law as a legal form for editing

apartment rent. Yet in terms of the principles of rule of law

the State is entitled to do only what is given him by law. Unauthorized

and unreasonable regulation of rents in the form of regulation, which in addition

does not respect article. 89 para. 2 of the Constitution, the Government committed an infringement of article 81(1) also. 2

paragraph. 2 and article. 4 (4). 2 and 4 of the Charter.

According to the plaintiffs, Government order No. 567/2002 Coll., also is not in the

accordance with the provisions of § 9 para. 1 Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on prices,

(hereinafter referred to as the "law on prices"), according to which the price must

the moratorium apply to prices on whole groups of goods.

So it is not in the present case, since the regulation again

unjustifiably discriminates between flats and unduly

divides a set of rental housing to a group of apartments with regulated

rent a group of apartments, which rent is not regulated, with about

neústavnosti of this fact, the Constitutional Court ruled. In addition, the

Government regulation does not define the audience properly, as provided for in § 3

paragraph. 2 of the Act on prices and as held by the Constitutional Court in its finding of no.

528/2002 Sb. Beyond the appellants further banned reservations

point out that the legislation is not likely to edit

social relationships, because according to § 9 para. 1 of the law on prices the prices

the moratorium represents a time-limited ban on price increases above, yet

a valid level in the market of the goods, which means that it must continually

follow up on the level of prices has not yet valid. Government Regulation came into force

and the effect on 20.12.2002, but already from 18.12.2002 (i.e. the date on which

the finding was published no 528/2002 Coll.) There is no special adjustment

for the regulation of the apartment rent. The Government was not entitled to the date of 20.12.2002

In addition, backward roll out invalid and unconstitutional the legal regime regulating the prices

apartment rent through a price moratorium. The Government has failed to

the law granting the continuity condition of maintained and regulated

prices, and so is the legislation not only unconstitutional and illegal, but also

ineffective and obsolete. Furthermore, given in accordance with section 1 (1). 6

the law on prices, from which you can regulate the pricing only if

the market is vulnerable to the effects of the restriction of competition or it requires

extraordinary market situation. Neither of those conditions, however, compliance with the

was not. If the reason for the adoption of the contested legislation was

protection of tenants before raising the rent of the flats, then according to the

existing legislation allowing claimants to increase

rent in apartments with controlled rent could only occur after the

mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, or on the basis of

the Court's decision. The above procedure of the Government in violation of the article. 2

paragraph. 2 and article. 4 (4). 2 and 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms.

In conclusion, the appellants point out that the Constitutional Court in its finding of no.

528/2002 Coll. did not rule out the possibility to use the price regulation in the field of

the rent, but in this case, the price must correspond to the General

provisions of the law on prices. The price must be taken into account in particular the costs

use and repair, return on capital employed, location and attractiveness

apartment and a reasonable profit. From expert analyses, that the Government should let

develop, reportedly shows that the simple reproduction of the housing stock is

each year an average of 2.7% need to spend out of the reproduction purchase price

the apartment, while regulated rents according to the same analysis represents only

approx. 1-1.3% of the replacement cost of the apartment. In so doing, for example. Polish

in October 2002, the Constitutional Court had to decide on the right of landlords to increase

the rent to a level of 3% of the purchase price of the apartment. Price

Regulation is according to the appellants ' action for exceptional and acceptable

only under strictly limited conditions, which respect the structure of the regulated

the price, which includes both legitimate and reasonable costs (usually)

profit, comparable with the rate of long-term loans. The rent is

under the civil code in payment for the temporary abandonment of the apartment to the tenant

use taking into account the value of the apartment. Price regulation should be

enshrined in the position of always subsidiárním, IE. only for the case when

autonomous agreement of the parties, with no legal

prescription this agreement did not preclude. It is therefore unacceptable that the

any administrative authority was preparing sanctions for entities in the

currently freely agree on the rent of the apartment in accordance with the cited

Constitutional Court, therefore, in good faith, that such an agreement has

take precedence over the said regulation.

On the basis of the above, the Group of Senators proposed to

The Constitutional Court the Government set aside the conflict with the article. 1 and article.

89 para. 2 of the Constitution, article. 1, art. 3, art. 4 and article. 11 of the Charter and article. 1

The additional protocol to the Convention, on the date on which it designates. The appellants

at the same time asked the Constitutional Court to decide on its proposal as

an emergency within the meaning of § 39 of the law on the Constitutional Court.

Due to recurrent unconstitutional interference in the area of

the apartment from the Government and the Ministry of finance and to avert

the threatened serious damage or injury, to prevent impending violent

intervention or other substantial public interest plaintiffs further

applying to the Constitutional Court by analogy with the provisions of section 80, and in accordance with the

the provisions of section 63 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by

amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "law on the Constitutional Court") for the use of

the relevant provisions of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure,

issued the preliminary injunction, which the Government banned in interventions to

apartment rent prices through the issuing of own

legislation continued. The appellants consider this measure

the only way to protect operators against the tampering of the authorities

Executive power and as the only way enforceability of the binding effect of the decision

The Constitutional Court, and even against the Government. In this context, the appellants

They pointed out the provisions of section 158 of the criminal code, which deals with the

the subjective responsibility of public officials.


The Government in its observations submitted to the proposal stated that it accepts the

the appellants ' arguments only to the extent and in the context in which corresponds to the

the previous two findings of the Constitutional Court in the matter of rent controls.

The Government, however, does not identify with the view set out in the award No 231/2000 Coll.

that the contested decree had not been taken into account the destruction of property

right after February 1948, and stressed that the Constitutional Court in both of the previous

findings questioned the possibility of rent controls, the it meets the statutory

conditions, refused, according to the argument that rent control is protected

only a certain group of tenants questioned the duty of landlords

to comply with certain restrictions, as well as the obligation for tenants to submit to

interference with the contractual relationship by the measures of the State, and the Constitutional Court

He selected the form of rent controls unconstitutional, when

podzákonná standard has been used to control other than price relationships.

As regards the individual appellants ' arguments, the Government said that the

the contested regulation is another category of regulation, when it comes to emergency and

time-limited measures, which has been accessed to after

the cancellation of the price assessment findings of the Constitutional Court responded to a whole

unacceptable condition where the tenants will be exposed to the massive pressure

landlords to access on any changes to tenancy agreements.

The practicability of this threat has been confirmed not only by declaring the civil

Association of homeowners, prompts you to the massive unilateral

rent increases, but above all the innumerable cases where the specific

homeowners began to enforce rent increases in the order of hundreds of

percent and citizens turned to the Government for assistance. In terms of the

lodged a constitutional complaint then the Government it considers relevant, whether the

proceeded in accordance with the law on prices. In so doing, the Commission expressed the view that the

the regulation was issued on the basis of the mandate in section 9 of the Act on prices, which

allows you to disable for up to 6 months over price increases have not yet valid

level in the market of the goods. This is not just about the prices regulated by the Act and

does not modify the way of detecting a valid level of prices on the market; the Government has chosen

the level of the rent of the flats, which are specified by the regulation. The Government further

stated that it is according to the article. 67 para. 1 of the Constitution, the supreme body of executive power,

and not the central State authority within the meaning of § 1 (1). 6, respectively.

paragraph. 7 of the law on prices and, therefore, is entitled to within the limits of section 9 of the Act.

establish a price moratorium when the criterion for the political decision to

his determination is taking on the position and function of the Government in the public interest.

The Government is not bound by the reasons of price regulation, but must take into account the

the law on prices. Pursuant to that provision is the Government required to apply

the price of a moratorium to inform Parliament, which it is for the assessment

tangible reasons for applying a price moratorium, and the Constitutional Court

for the Court to review the matter in this respect. The Government has rejected the claim and

of the appellants that this form of rent controls should not be on the way

subordinate standards, because the law in a given case, the announcement of the price

the moratorium by way of regulation the Government explicitly requests and the contested regulation

no other questions or concepts it does not regulate. If the appellants seek

a preliminary injunction, such a proposal has no support in the law on

The Constitutional Court, since the Act on the procedure for the abolition of laws and other

the legislation does not permit the application of the provisional measure. Due to the

These facts, the Government proposes that the Constitutional Court design group

Senators rejected.


The contested regulation of the Government No. 567/2002 Coll., it was established that the rent of the

the apartment, which was on the day of 17.12.2002 regulated maximum price, and

the rent from such an apartment, whose construction, completion or reconstruction

was enabled after 30.6.1993 and financed participated in public

the resources cannot be for 3 months of the effective date of its effectiveness

increase. Without at this stage, the Constitutional Court had the intention of venturing into

for a more detailed legal analysis, it is clear that the subject of that

the law is to be understood in a general sense-rent controls from the

apartment. As already mentioned in its proposal for the senators, while the Constitutional Court

rent control was in two cases, in which it decided to

both findings, dated 21.6.2000 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/2000 (publ. No.

231/2000 Coll.), which, at the date of 31 December 2001 set aside the Decree of the Ministry of

Finance no 176/1993 Coll., on rent from the apartment and pay for performance

provided with the use of the apartment, as amended, and

finding dated 20.11.2002 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 (publ. No. 528/2002

SB.), on the basis of which it was mj. decided by updating shall be deleted;

No 06/2002, laying down a maximum rent of the apartment, the maximum price

the services provided with the use of the apartment and rules for substantive usměrňované

the rent of the apartment and the amended Bill MF no 01/2002. Due to the fact that the constitutional

in the aforementioned cases, the Court ruled on the same subject matter as in this

the case, the Constitutional Court is primarily focused on whether the legal opinions in

These earlier decisions contained can be used (possibly to what extent)

used in the assessment of the proposal.

For this reason, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary in brief

remind me, what reasons led him to issue the above decisions.

In finding no 231/2000 Coll., the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the protection of

tenants is part of our legal order on the basis of international treaties

on human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the sense of when a valid article.

10 of the Constitution, in particular article. 11 of the International Covenant on economic,

social and cultural rights, article. 16 of the European Social Charter and article.

4 of the additional protocol to the Charter; the right of tenants to a certain protection, how to

It is apparent from the decision of the European Court of human rights in the case of

Mellacher and the other against Austria of 19.12.1989 (A-168)

corresponds to an obligation to landlords (owners) to tolerate the introduction of

Regulation, but only on condition that there is given a reasonable (legitimate)

the relationship of proportionality between the means used and objectives pursued.

This principle has been violated, as in addressing the disconnect between the protection of

tenants and the protection of the property have been built too Decree

When unilaterally disregarded the process of destruction of property rights

after February 1948 in the field of management of the flats. The State is required

the Elimination of discrimination of owners of apartment buildings so as to be filled in with

their right to peaceful use of property within the meaning of article 87(1). 1 Additional

Protocol to the Convention, as well as the right enshrined in article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter,

which, however, did not happen and the affected category of owners are not only denied

some of the essential permissions that make up the contents of their ownership

rights, but in addition are "vmanévrováni" in a situation where in a number of

the cases are forced to "subsidize" what Constitutional Court seemed like thing

the nature and responsibilities of the society-wide, such as load

deletion is not possible for certain social groups and whose severity

and the nature of the truly responsible, and requires a balanced approach by

the State and the whole society. According to the Constitutional Court, there is no doubt that the

a relevant category of owners is required to comply with certain restrictions

When the rent increases, we can, of course, under the conditions

arising from article. 4 (4). 3 and 4 of the Charter, which is not the case, since the exact

category owners are forced to submit to a significant limitation of their

of property rights, while others are not, and this limitation occurs

the contested Decree in a way that does not spare the essence of ownership rights.

Finally, the Constitutional Court expressed the opinion that if the price regulation

exceed the limits of constitutionality, not clearly reduce the price so that the

due to all the proven and necessarily incurred costs eliminated

the possibility at least of their return, as in this case, would actually

implied a denial of purpose and all functions of the ownership.

In the second the above mentioned award No 528/2002 Coll., Constitutional Court

the question of the legality of the contested assessment MF No 6/2002 and zneni = "u" came to the

the conclusion that the Ministry of finance beyond legal authorization (Law No.

526/1990 Coll.) and outside the scope of its competence as laid down

starring tackling housing policies state rules

the behavior of the designated bodies, which is the starting point of the law, establishing the

at the same time conflict with the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 of the Charter. Building on this

He pointed out the fact that this is an effort to replace the legislation,

that has been canceled Constitutional Court No. 229/2000 Coll. On then

The Constitutional Court said other reasons why you need to consider the

Bill not only contrary to law, but also to be unconstitutional. In the first place had

The Constitutional Court considered that by choosing this path control was affected by the

the rules of law-making in the legal state when subject

"the prices of the decision" represents the solution of questions whose adjustment should

be reserved democratically legitimovanému lawmakers.

podzákonným the legislation within the limits of the mandate given by the legislator.

The Constitutional Court then dealt with the concept of price regulation and came to the

the conclusion that is not unconstitutional if it is based on the market prices are dependent on

the position of the home, but they must respect the "fair balance" between

the imperatives of the public interest and the protection of fundamental rights of the individual. In

It was pointed out that, even if called. personal use

apartments, when relations to flats were generally based administrative act

State, and not the Treaty was changed to "renting" real

the transformation of the legal regulation of the rental relationship, the corresponding system

market economy, did not occur. Constitutional Court declares this fact

the differences of our legislation, compared with European standards, in particular where the

as to the duration of the contract, scope of the transition of the exploitation rights, the exchange of flats,

the reasons and the obligation to provide notice of the replacement of the apartment. In the case of

rent control, before us was based on the so-called. command prices

While in European countries from the market prices of housing. The current attempt to

compromise between the two concepts, based on only of adaptation

rent the development costs and inflation, and without regard to the impact of the market,

allocation and information does not take the effect of market prices, but in the opinion of

The Constitutional Court, to the non-utilization of the housing stock, the injustices during its

distribution and corruption. Mutual correlation of price regulation of rents

and lagging transformation of civil-law relations regulating housing has

result in an imbalance of the principle of the protection of tenants and the principle of the protection of

ownership, when the subsidies granted to tenants of the society

resources through low prices, the rent is transferred to some

of the lessor. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated violation of equality in

treatment of individuals by the State power, because with one group

subjects of property rights are treated differently and their property does not have a legally

same content as the property of other landlords; in doing so, he emphasized that

This fact does not exclude in a reasonable proportion to protect both the interests of the

the owner and tenants, in a specified time period can be put

take precedence over the interests of one side, but not consistently and not at all

unilaterally. According to the Constitutional Court, while it is possible in the transform

period, that is, at the time the Act came into effect Decree No. 176/1993 Coll.

create for the existing State of relations of use sufficient legal certainty,

However, these reasons are currently losing momentum, especially if it is not

the very existence of the rental relationship, but about rent control.

Ownership of rental housing is also to ownership, and therefore cannot be

permanently removed from the regular legal regime and subordinate mode

the special, if not compelling reasons for it. Earlier the circumstances were

sight worthy, however, current restrictions on landlords to be further

keep, even if they would have chosen the appropriate form

the regulation of the way of the law. The Constitutional Court also pointed out that the price

Regulation cannot be considered to be unconstitutional, it is, of course, be evaluated,

What is the subject of regulation, to whom, what is its form and in

to what extent-in terms of the principle of proportionality and the protection of nature and the

the meaning of the fundamental right or freedom-it can be used. This also applies to

rent control, in which the need to carefully consider how the existence of a

public interest to justify the application of the provisions governing

selection rules for its implementation, in order to respect appropriate

the balance between the requirement in the general interest of society and the need for

protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. This means that there must be

sane (well founded) relationship of proportionality between the means

and its objectives, and this rule was not respected in the light of

on the time that has elapsed since 1989. Limit the ownership regulations

the rent is possible by law and under the conditions laid down by the Charter, and it

only to the extent that does not affect the nature of ownership, and

compliance with the prohibition of discrimination. The rule in this area is to determine the

the rental agreement as a free (not any) of rent, and

the regulation is an exception, which should be limited to the necessary

period of time. Finally, the Constitutional Court summed up the contested assessment in terms of its

the content, as well as legal forms of violation of the article. 2 (2). 2 of the Charter and article.

2 (2). 3 of the Constitution in conjunction with article. 1, art. 4 (4). 3 and 4 and article. 11 (1) 1

Of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention in conjunction with article. 14

The Convention, when the Treasury Department failed to meet the law defined

scope and encroach the reserved laws

to discriminate the group owners due to the absence of "a reasonable

the ratio between resources and "the aim with respect to time,

which has passed since 1989. That authority has violated even the principle of the separation of powers and

the rule of law (article 1 and 15 of the Constitution).


After a summary of the case law on the issue of rent controls, the Constitutional Court

judged by the contested regulation of the Government in terms of legal effects. In General, the

You can say that its purpose and the purpose is to "freeze" the amount of rent on

limited period of time. The object of the legislation is not rent in General, but

It is on the one hand about the rent, which was the date of 17.12.2002 regulated

the maximum price, i.e. the rent within the meaning of point 1 of the notice to the MF no 06/2002

that was the next day, IE. 18.12.2002, already cited findings

The Constitutional Court No 528/2002 Coll., cancelled, and on the other side of the rent for

apartments, whose completion or reconstruction was enabled after 30.6.1993 and

financing public funds were involved, IE. in the so-called. apartments

with substantive usměrňovaným rent (cf. section 3 (1) of the same assessment). From

that shows that the prices of the moratorium has a close connection to

Bill No. 06/2002, when in both cases is the subject of legal regulation in the

basically the same as. However, as regards the content of legal regulation, the contested

Regulation is to that assessment as to the already MF, voided the law

referenced, even implicitly. If the appellants argue that

the Government, on the basis of a price moratorium introduced retroactively, i.e.,. from 18.12.2002,

price control mode of the apartment rent, and so it is "ineffective",

or obsolete treatment, unable to agree with this view, because of the

the contested regulation shows that the Government shall take effect on the date of

announcement of the launching date, and does not mandate, 20.12.2002 as regards

the amount of the rent, the application of the legislation of the cancelled before its release

(assessment MF no 06/2002); It is only a definition of the substantive scope of the legal

the standards contained in regulation, when the substance is here rent

showing the exact "characters", although this character is in one case

Regulation on a specific date. Therefore, you can generally conclude that the contested regulation

to date, 20.12.2002 perpetuates "de facto" status, i.e. the rent. the status of the

based on individual relations, due to which it cannot be without

next should be inferred that the Government Regulation No. 567/2002 Coll., maintains the level of

apartment rent at a level already, the Constitutional Court its findings no 528/2002

Coll. considered unconstitutional.

In connection with the above, so the question arises, what is the status of this,

more specifically, to what extent-from a legal standpoint-is now rent

regulated. It is possible to assume, that updating no 06/2002 lost

force and effect on and after that date the 18.12.2002 impede anything

the Contracting Parties to negotiate the amount of the rent agreement; on the contrary, unilateral

increase in rent from the landlord no longer admissible was not because

for the lease of the apartment, although he admits the unilateral increase in rent, but at the

provided that a special law so provides (art. 696 (1)

of the Civil Code), which is now, of course, is missing. Not forgetting, or other

the possibility that one of the parties is reversed in the case of rent

the competent court; This would be the case of a dispute about the amount of the rent,

in particular, if the landlord the rent seeking in the amount of "normal" with

on the grounds that there was no agreement on price (§ 671, paragraph 1, of the code of

Code); in such cases, however, there was "increasing" rent

the right sense of the word (also on this issue, see below). In this

the time can be assumed that the rent was not possible after the cancellation of assessment

MF no 06/2002 to unilaterally increase, and if there was, it would

so state on the basis of agreement between the parties, which, however, is the possibility of more

theoretical, not only due to the short time room for

any negotiating, but particularly with regard to well-known current

the economic disadvantage of this step from the point of view of the lessee. From the above, it is

evident, that the contested regulation temporarily de facto preserves rent that

It has been declared-in terms of both its amount and the method (a method)

-making unconstitutional Constitutional Court No. 528/2002 Coll. and the

Hence no 231/2000 Coll., an essential difference from the previous legal

editing is the fact that the legislation under consideration relies on other

statutory mandate, and applies only in the short term (three months), which would

significantly reduce the severity of its possible effects, and

Indeed, even the Constitutional Court admitted the possibility of the duration of the price regulation for

is absolutely necessary. Therefore, in the present case, the question arises as to whether these

circumstances do not preclude the emergence of unconstitutionality, as was found in

the previous law of rent, but concluded the Constitutional Court of the

reasons listed below did not mature.

According to § 1 (1). 6 of the Act on prices can be regulate price formation, respectively.

regulate prices when the market is vulnerable to the effects of the restrictions of

competition or it requires extraordinary market situation, with one of the

forms of price control is the price moratorium within the meaning of article 4, paragraph 2.

1 (b). (d)) and section 9 of the Act on prices that can be set for a maximum of 6

months. Although the Government claims that the provisions of § 1 (1). 6 and 7 of the law on

price talks about the central bodies of State administration, which the Government is not,

However, just because of the systematic ordering of a price moratorium for

price controls, or between price regulation (§ 3 para 1, § 4

the law on prices) it can be concluded that the above quoted provision is

shall apply also in the case of the procedure according to § 9 of the articles of the law. The integration of

Note that is an exceptional form of regulation, when the aim of the

the measure is the removal of a State of crisis in the relevant market; as is apparent

from the explanatory memorandum to the law on prices, the prices of the moratorium should be

accompanied by a complex of macroeconomic measures to allow for

deleting a State of crisis and a return to normal market conditions.

The assessment of whether there is condition requires the release price of a moratorium, as well as

the choice of the subsequent economic measures, in principle, are among the so-called.

political questions which the Court can assess, however,

provided, that the Executive power is honors the legal limits.

In the case of a situation that, for the goods (services),

that is the subject of the regulation, that is, flats with controlled rent,

cannot be applied to large parts of the housing, especially in big cities, probably not

market as the site of a voluntary shift to talk (in these cases, it is

rather, a market in which illegally "selling" rental rights). It is not

probably should be neither too stress that, contrary to the market with the ocean

apartments with the contract rent is greatly distorted by the restrictions on the

menu (a lower number of "free" housing, the reluctance of the owners for the degree

protection of tenants of flats to rent) and demand (economic benefit

living in apartments with regulated rent), which suffers from a significant portion of

of the population. Restriction of competition on the "market" with the flats as a whole so

It is not primarily caused by imperfections of the market itself (the real market

works without more attention, but the previous Government) (irregular)

the control measures of the State. Meaning and purpose of price regulation is to be

protection against negative effects of imperfect market, or in the case of

the price of a moratorium before the currently manages in the (upcoming) crisis

the situation has, as is apparent from the nature of things, causes in the market itself.

If the Constitutional Court came out of the housing market with a "regulated"

rent even exists (see above), it is so necessary to the legal

a precondition for the acceptance of a price moratorium of unforeseen

the exceptional situation on the market in question, which was raised by the

by the circumstances. For such an extraordinary market situation can generally be considered

the case where there is or could be in a very short period of time to

multiple growth rates at the items that are significantly involved in

the necessary expenses of the individual. the family, which may be the case

rents, so that the prima facie assessment of the issue may appear to be

as legitimate. In the case under consideration is not. In the first place

the cause of the eventual crisis is not immediately in the market as such, but

in previous regulatory actions of the State (in the broader sense), and release

of the present regulation is not a reaction to an unexpected market situation-this is

the Government undoubtedly known for several years-but on the legal status of the remaining after

publication of the finding of the Constitutional Court No 528/2002 Coll., with clearly

This is a special-purpose "solutions" that should be reserved for other legal

instruments. Above all, however, the Constitutional Court concluded that such

the situation, which would allow the impact of rent growth at all.

Given these facts, so (more severe), might consider necessary

detail to address the question whether the contested regulation is sufficiently defined

the circle of addressees within the meaning of § 3 para. 2 of the law on pricing, or důvodností

regulatory restrictions only on some of the rental relations; on the other hand here

However, probably eliminates doubts about who is the addressee of a given legal

standards, and cannot in General, nor to exclude that there may be

justifiable reasons for a certain selectivity with regard to the effects of

the relevant regulation, although in the case of a price moratorium should be

be a whole complexes of the markets (see the explanatory memorandum to the law on prices).

First you need to go back to the above-cited decision of the constitutional

the Court, finding no 231/2000 States that the cause of the breach of

the constitutionality was not price regulation as such, but the inadequacy of the above

prices in the regulation enshrined, and the Constitutional Court expressed the principle that

You cannot lower the price so that due to all the proven and necessarily

at least the possibility of eliminating the expenses of their return. From

that can be inferred the minimum requirement of return necessarily

of the expenditure incurred. This policy then the Constitutional Court substantially

added finding no 528/2002 Coll., finding defects in the

How is a regulated price, IE. Depending on the

development costs and inflation, and stressed the principle of free pricing that can be

accept (possibly excluding the transitional period) the rent control in

immediate depending on market conditions. Violations of those

the rules then the Constitutional Court deemed it unconstitutional and the contested legal

provisions set aside. Here it should be pointed out that, although they

cancellation, unconstitutional state by not, for in spite of the decision of the

The Constitutional Court was the rent continues to be fixed at a level which was

at the same time the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional. This arises

from the fact that, as already indicated above, the unilateral increase of the rent

the landlord is not permissible, nor implied in this issue

the agreement of the parties; While landlords-given the high degree of protection

tenants, as was described in detail in the award of the Constitutional Court No.

528/2002 Coll.-basically do not have the option to terminate the lease and

Subsequently, to conclude a contract with rents based real agreement.

(Referred to the phenomenon when the unconstitutional state of the interaction of multiple

individual provisions in the German literature referred to as

"Normengeflecht", i.e. as "interlocking" of standards.)

On the other side of the State, as indicated above, fundamentally challenges the

the justification for the release of the contested regulation. The Constitutional Court is based on the fact that

State interference with the rights and freedoms of individuals are permitted provided

respect for the principle of proportionality between the means

objectives (see e.g. the findings of the Constitutional Court No. 167/2000 Coll. No.

231/2000 Coll., no 410/2001 Coll.), with one of the criteria for this

the principle is the principle of the eligibility of the fulfillment of the purpose (or appropriate),

According to which the measure must be able to reach at all

the intended objective of protecting other fundamental rights or

public good. If that goal should be the protection of tenants before

real or potential effects of the market (along with excessive behavior

specific landlords), then it is a measure of excess, because

due to the existing legal tenants of the eventual negative

market forces after the cancellation of the notice to the MF No 6/2002, exposed, and

solutions to legal problems in individual relations are things to do

the competent public authorities. While it would be possible to understand the efforts of

Government to remove some uncertainty of the parties concerned, it is of

for (konkr. from the standpoint of price regulation) o the procedure

irrelevant, head of the appellants, as they point out, the unjust

restriction of freedom of contract of the parties.

To this must be added that, with regard to the Constitution and the statutory

the powers of the Constitutional Court, which is bound to the examination of the proposal,

First, when you check the standards acts only in the role of "negative

the legislature ", the Constitutional Court had not given permission, several years of

unconstitutional state delete and so could only on the fact

draw the attention of the legislature (see finding no 528/2002 Coll.) with reference to the need to

the adoption of the concurrent legislation constitutionally. He, however, remained idle (respectively.

He was active without the desired outcome, which is the date of the Act),

as a result there was non-compliance with article. 1 of the Constitution; In addition, he was Executive

This unconstitutional state temporarily "frozen" by issuing the contested

of the regulation. The Constitutional Court is generally of the opinion that it can be

assuming of course the protection of important public interest-

to apply the benchmarks for very short interference with the rights and freedoms

of the individual, and for its minor effects, than is the case in

interventions without a time limit; However, this cannot be the case that

precedes the range already declared banned interventions essentially about

the same content-that is, if it is a question of the amount of rent-because the

the mentioned element is "cyclical problems" in essence fundamentally disowned; otherwise,

words, prolonging the protiústavního state recorded is not only undesirable,

But even inadmissible, and so is unconstitutional and a prescription, which is this

extension of the cause.

In this situation, the fact the factual content of the conformity of present

intervention, therefore, as regards the amount of the rent, with those that have been in the past

declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, taking into account the fact that

This intervention has occurred once again in the form of podzákonného regulation, issued through the

beyond legal authorization, which was in previous cases, also

is found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, based on grounds of unconstitutionality

listed in the cited findings, specifically because of the infringement of article 81(1). 2

paragraph. 2 of the Charter and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution in conjunction with article. 1, art. 4 (4).

3 and 4 and article. 11 (1) 1 of the Charter and article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention

in conjunction with article. 14 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the regulation

Government no 567/2002 Coll., laying down a price moratorium of rents from

apartments, is in conflict with the constitutional order and the international obligations of the United

of the Republic. For this reason, the Constitutional Court was forced to is in accordance with § 70 para. 1

the law on the Constitutional Court to cancel. The Constitutional Court agrees with the opinion of the

the appellants that there was an infringement of article 81(1). 89 para. 2 of the Constitution, because the Government

the venue was in its previous findings of the Constitutional Court is bound, when

applicable legal opinions expressed in the above-mentioned findings were

a sufficient Guide for the next steps of the Government (a binding is not only the operative part of the

the award, but also in the preamble, or those parts of it which contain "carrier"

the reasons; CF.. Filip, j., Holländer, P., Prince, v.: the law on the Constitutional

Court, comment, c. h. Beck, 1. Edition, 2001, pp. 286-287), apart from

that respect for the views of the Constitutional Court is in developed countries

normal part of the political and legal culture.

To do this, just as obiter dictum, the Constitutional Court considers necessary to note

that of the legislation made by the civil code shows that rentals are

agreed, in principle, are charged agreement in the amount of normal at the time of

conclusion of the contract (§ 671, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code). It then

It appears that the basis of the rental relationship is either beneficial or at least

hypothetical consensus of both parties, in addition to further on the issue of price

(i.e. the rent stipulated by agreement or customary in eventum market). U

tenancy agreements, rent which are regulated, in particular, the maximum

the price, however, was the specific situation. As the Constitutional Court in detail

described in the finding of no 528/2002 Coll., the rent of the apartment is transformed from the right

personal use of the apartment, which was characterised by the fact that it quasi

proprietary in nature, and was produced by allocating an apartment and the level of remuneration in the

the vast majority does not arise on the basis of the free agreement of the Contracting Parties,

but was officially established in more detail (e.g. Czech, z., et al.:

The civil code, the comment also, Panorama, Prague 1987, pp. 539 and

seq.). The said transformation of the personal use of the "classic" rent was

imperfect, because the lease has retained many features of legal relationship

the previous, which manifested itself as a high degree of protection for tenants

the standards of the civil law and the regulation of the amount of rent. Both of these

factors together resulted in a number of regions of the Czech Republic cannot be

talk about a hypothetical consensus (rather is often the

a deep disharmony). Due to the amount of the established unconstitutionality

legal status (and referred to the legal specifics of the lease agreements with

"regulated" rents), if it is not introduced into the Czech legal order

constitutionally Conformal rent controls, there will be no Constitutional Court, before

to live up to its obligations, which for it under the Constitution, at least in the

individual cases to ensure the functioning of the principles stemming from the

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. relevant international

conventions, even if such a solution is inadequate, unsystematic and basically

only temporary, when the only real recourse is obviously the adoption of

the relevant legislation within the meaning of the previous constitutional

the Court.

A group of Senators further requests that the Constitutional Court on the basis of the preliminary

the measures prohibit the Government continue the interventions in the areas of rent prices

the apartment through the issuance of its own law. From this

the proposal, however, it is not obvious whether the interim measure has to pay to the publication

the award, as is the case in the case of interim measures, for example. According to section 80

the law on the Constitutional Court, or to (possibly) after this publication, which

It can be inferred from the fact that the appellants is considered the only way

enforceability of the binding effect of the decision of the Constitutional Court. As regards the first

the case, the Constitutional Court did not decide on this proposal, because it is directly held

on the merits, for its urgency out of order of incoming proposals. To do this,

should be added that in proceedings relating to revocation of the laws and other legislation

the second section of the first head of the Act on the Constitutional Court, with the issuance of

interim measures does not count at all, unlike the procedure under section

the third or the seventh head of the other. On the basis of the argument per

eliminationem can come to conclusion that this procedure is not

The Constitutional Court shall be entitled to issue no provisional measures, and so would be

necessary to request according to § 43 para. 1 (b). (d)) of the Act on the constitutional

the Court as a suggestion that consultation is not a Constitutional Court with jurisdiction,

refuse. If the Group of Senators proposed issue of "interim" measures

for the future, then this is a similar situation, since the Constitutional Court may, in

the revocation of laws and other legislation proceed only

as provided by law, i.e. decide the manner referred to in section 70 of the Act

on the Constitutional Court, and the decision of this kind, which is being proposed,

in this provision is not modified. Whereas the Constitutional Court

had the proposal according to § 43 para. 1 (b). (d)) of the Act on the Constitutional Court

(by analogy) refuse.

The President of the Constitutional Court:

JUDr. Haboob in r.

Related Laws